and beyond
Session 2: Conventional CPR theory and beyond
In-class activity: Mobilizing qualitative evidence to test SES-related theory
This activity is based on Evans et al.’s and Basurto and Ostrom (2009), which are mandatory readings for this module.
Thinking about cooperation and sustainable management of natural resources…
Much of the community-based management theory understands sustainability as fundamentally mediated by cooperation processes. As we will discuss in class, cooperation to develop resource management rules and comply with them should not be taken for granted and needs to be explained. As pointed in the introductory articles, an important set of explanations are related to the role of institutions (i.e., rules and norms that constraint individual behavior). Some of those explanations can be translated into management principles (see readings). Although those principles seem pretty obvious, the causal mechanisms behind
3
their relevance are not that easy to formulate. Why clear boundaries, participation and environmental and social monitoring contribute to cooperation and thus sustainable management? Which assumptions do we need to make?
Preparing for in class-activity:
The Great Barrier Reef Marie Park (GBRMP) can be characterized as a relatively successful case of large scale management, particularly after some reforms in 2004. Assessing the “success” of a management system in such a complex context is not easy task though. Boundaries on SES are difficult to draw, and so are the boundaries and interactions between its SES components. Based on Evans et al.’s text and building on the SES framework, please answer the following questions in groups of two:
- Which Governance system (from pieces of regulation to specific measures) can we identify in the GBRMP case?
- How many different types of marine resources are relevant (fishes, corals…)? o Have they characteristics that may facilitate or hinder management?
- How about actors or groups of them and their characteristics (from resource users like commercial and recreational fishers to officials and public organizations)?
- Can we identify relevant CPR properties contributing to successful governance of the GBRMP?
Please, use the table provided to record quotes from the text (“quotes” column) and assign them codes of governance system, types of resources, actor groups and properties of them (“SES components and properties” column).
References
Cited in the presentation
Acheson, James M. 2006. Institutional Failure in Resource Management. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:117-134.
Agrawal, Arun. 1994. I don't need it but you can't have it: Politics on the commons. Pastoral
Development Network 36:36-55.
Agrawal, Arun. 2001. Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources. World
Development 29 (10):1649-1672.
Agrawal, Arun. 2003. Sustainable Governance of Common Pool Resources: Context, Methods, and Politics. Annual Review of Anthropology 32 (1):243-262.
Agrawal, Arun, and Clark C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation. World Development 27 (4):629-649.
Agrawal, Arun, and Elinor Ostrom. 2001. Collective Action, Property Rigths and Decentralization in Resource Use in India and Nepal. Politics and Society 29 (4):485-514.
Basurto, Xavier, and Elinor Ostrom. 2009. Beyond the Tragedy of the Commons. Economia delle Fonti
di Energia e dell'Ambiente LII (1):35-60.
Berkes, Fikret. 2004. Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology 18 (3):621-630. Berkes, Fikret. 2005. Commons theory for marine resource management in a complex world. Senri
Ethnological Studies 67:13-31.
Bodin, Örjan, and Beatrice I. Crona. 2008. Management of Natural Resources at the Community Level: Exploring the Role of Social Capital and Leadership in a Rural Fishing Community. World
4
Epstein, Graham, Jessica Vogt, Sarah Mincey, Michael Cox, and Burney Fischer. 2013. Missing ecology: integrating ecological perspectives with the social-ecological system framework. International
Jounal of the Commons 7 (2).
Nielsen, Jesper Raakjær, Poul Degnbol, K. Kuperan Viswanathan, Mahfuzuddin Ahmed, Mafaniso Hara, and Nik Mustapha Raja Abdullah. 2004. Fisheries co-management—an institutional innovation? Lessons from South East Asia and Southern Africa. Marine Policy 28 (2):151-160.
Olsson, Per, Carl Folke, and Fikret Berkes. 2004. Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience in Social–Ecological Systems. Environmental Management 34 (1):75-90.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1998. A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997. The American Political
Science Review 92 (1):1-22.
Ostrom, Elinor. 2007. A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 104 (39):15181-15187.
Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems.
Science 325 (5939):419-422.
Ostrom, Elinor, Roy Gardner, and James Walker. 1994. Rules, Games and Common Pool Resources. Michigan: Michigan University Press.
Ribot, Jesse C., Arun Agrawal, and Anne M. Larson. 2006. Recentralizing While Decentralizing: How National Governments Reappropriate Forest Resources. World Development 34 (11):1864-1886. Schlager, Edella, William Blomquist, and Shui Yan Tang. 1994. Mobile flows, storage, and self-
organized institutions for governing common-pool resources. Land Economics 70 (3):294. Steins, N. A. , and V. M. Edwards. 1999. Collective action on common pool resource management: the
contribution of a social constructivist perspective to existing theory. Society and Natural
Resources 12:539:557.
Tang, Shui Yan, and Ching-Ping Tang. 2001. Negotiated Autonomy: Transforming Self-Governing Institutions for Local Common-Pool Resources in Two Tribal Villages in Taiwan. Human
Ecology 29 (1):49-67.
Marine resources related references
Berkes, F. 2005. Commons theory for marine resources management in a complex world. Senri Ecological Studies 67:13-31.
Bodin, Ö. and B. I. Crona. 2008. Management of natural resources at the community level: exploring the role of social capital and leadership in a rural fishing community." World Development 36(12): 2763-2779.
Cinner, J.E. 2007. Designing marine reserves to reflect local socioeconomic conditions: lessons from long-enduring customary management systems. Coral Reefs 26(4): 1035-1045.
Harkes, I. 2006. Fisheries Co-management, The Role of Local Institutions and Decentralization in Southeast Asia: With Specific Reference to Marine Sasi in Central Maluku, Indonesia. PhD Dissertation, Centre of Environmental Sciences (CML), Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Leiden University.
Leal, D. 1998. Community-run fisheries: avoiding the "tragedy of the commons." Population and the Environment 19(3): 225-245.
Pinto da Silva, P. 2004. "From common property to co-management: lessons from Brazil's first maritime extractive reserve. Marine Policy 28(5):419-428.
Pomeroy, R.S., B.M. Katon, and I. Harkes. 2001. Conditions affecting the success of fisheries co- management: lessons from Asia. Marine Policy 25: 197-208.
Quinn, C. H., M. Huby, H. Kiwasila, and J. C. Lovett. 2007. Design principles and common pool resource management: An institutional approach to evaluating community management in semi-arid Tanzania. Journal of Environmental Management 84: 100-113.
Pinkerton, E., and M. Weinstein. 1995. Fisheries That Work: Sustainability Through Community-based Management. The David Suzuki Foundation, Vancouver, CA.
5
Rout, S.P. 2006. Co-Management of Common Property Resources: A Case Study of Supra-National, National and Sub-National Institutions in Fisheries Management around Chilika Lake in Orissa, India. Presented at The Eleventh Conference of the International Association for the Study of Ruddle, K. 1996. Boundary definition as a basic design principle of traditional fishery
management systems in the Pacific Islands. Geographische Zeitschrift 84(2):94-102. Common Property, June 19-23, 2006, Bali, Indonesia.
Steins, N. A. and V. M. Edwards. 1999. Collective action on common pool resource management: the contribution of a social constructivist perspective to existing theory. Society and Natural Resources 12: 539:557.
Weinstein, M. S. 2000. Pieces of the puzzle: solutions for community-based fisheries management from native Canadians, Japanese cooperatives, and common property. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 12(2):375-412.
1
Appendix 6:
Resilience for Sustainable Development
The University of Reading
School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Sciences Department of Geography
Instructor: Emily Boyd Spring term 2015
OBJECTIVE
To provide insights into the theory and practice of resilience for sustainable development
INTRODUCTION
Development and sustainable development thinking are faced with significant challenges in rethinking their futures amid global environmental change. In particular climate change has major consequences for governance and human livelihoods in developing countries. It poses challenges to the management of extreme events and exacerbates existing problems of water scarcity and degradation of natural resources. This lecture series is concerned with these
consequences. Most importantly global environmental change has implications for the lives and livelihoods of millions of people around the globe. Uncertainty surrounds the environmental stresses that interact with human vulnerability, and the knock on effect on extreme poverty. Against this backdrop we see increasing attention paid to resilient development and to policy strategies that include mitigation and adaptation to climate change. These actions have yet to demonstrate their benefits in tackling the stress and poverty dimensions of global uncertainty. For example, mitigation schemes through the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanisms are often criticized for their failures of governance. The design of such schemes only provides benefit to single market actors while marginalizing a multitude of local actors, in particular the poorest. Meanwhile poorer communities reliant on natural resources for their livelihood are often locked into national policies, incentives and processes that continue to exacerbate the
degradation of these resources. Similarly, adaptation interventions in response to climate change provide limited insights into how people should manage the interaction between ‘surprise’ events, such as flooding or cyclones, and human vulnerability. The question is whether there a trade-off between adapting/mitigating climate change and development? Can a reevaluation of development through a resilience lens square this circle?
‘Resilience’ has come to mean many things to many people and has raised strong opposition by some to the idea that it is possible to identify a desirable point at which societies could agree to stabilize emissions, deforestation or overfishing. In a world that is unpredictable and is marked by vulnerability and risk, people remain poor, marginalized, discriminated against and dependent on powerful elites. Yet, global environmental change offers the opportunity to act as a circuit
2
breaker in other words to rethink the way societies manage and govern the natural environment. Perhaps resilience can help scholars and practitioners to understand better how societies can continue to develop under the stress posed by global environmental change? For example, what policy responses and institutional changes are in train in anticipation of the threats of global environmental change? Can resilience help us to reformulate our thinking about the status quo and trigger ideas for transformation to avoid tipping points?
Aims:
The aim of this lecture series is to provide a unique and a systematic evaluation of resilience as both theoretical lens and operational concept, one through which to re-examine how varieties of development theory (e.g. modernism, neoliberalism) deals with global environmental change and uncertainty, with a particular focus on climate change and its consequences. Of particular
importance is the effort to advance understanding of social change as part of the relationship between nature and society.
On completion of this module it is expected that students will be able to: Appreciate the range of interpretations given to the term resilience Understand how resilience is been approached, used and measured
Critically examine the practical implications arising from a vision of sustainable development in both developed and less developed countries
Synthesize both existing work and individual thought into a coherent, logically structured and well-written essay
TIMETABLE
Teaching will be by 10 x Lecture and 10 x Seminars